When You Work with a Jerk: The Bad Apples Study

By Paige Churchman (New York City)

Eliza Byington was unhappy at her job. There was no camaraderie. People didn’t work together, they barely spoke to one another. Then one of her colleagues was out sick for a long while, and the change in atmosphere was dramatic. Byington and her coworkers became a team — people started helping each other, went out for drinks together; they even played classical music in the office. Life was good. Work was productive. But when the person returned, things went right back to the way they’d been. How could one guy make such a difference? He wasn’t the boss, and, granted, he mocked people, but he wasn’t mean. He wasn’t even the kind of person you’d secretly wish would disappear so life would be easier.

“I guess it’s true,” said Byington, “A bad apple really does spoil the barrel.” She and her husband were students of organizational behavior at the University of Washington Business School, so they combed the academic research to substantiate the old saw. But all the research actually supported the opposite: Individuals conform to group dynamics. At Byington’s job, the group seemed to be conforming to one person. Was this an anomaly or would the same thing happen with other people? Could they show what was behind it? Her husband was Will Felps, and he made it his PhD thesis. How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel was published in 2006, with Byington as co-author, and has had a bit of play since being featured on a December This American Life episode called “Ruining It for the Rest of Us.”

How Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel

To recreate Byington’s experience in the lab, they found a student named Nick to portray three bad apple behaviors:

• The Jerk acknowledged his teammates’ ideas with, “Are you kidding me?” or “Have you actually taken a business course before?” He’d shoot down all ideas but offer none of his own. (Byington’s original coworker fell into this category.)
• The Shirker wouldn’t contribute. He’d lean back in his chair, put his feet up on the table and text message a friend on his cell phone. Later he’d pull a sandwich and a soda from his bag and eat. He’d respond to any ideas the group offered with “Whatever” or “I really don’t care.”
• The Depressive Pessimist put his head down on the table and personified the depths of despair. (Nick said he’d tell himself his cat had just died.) He’d complain about the exercise, saying it’s unenjoyable and then he’d cast doubts about the group’s ability to succeed.

Now it was time to bring in unsuspecting human beings. Undergrads were recruited and put into teams of four. Each team was given a 45-minute exercise that required them to make some basic management decisions. They were told they’d be scored, and there would be $100 for each person on the teams that produced the best exercises. Of course, some of these teams included Nick in one of the three bad apple personas. No matter what talent a team possessed, if Nick was on it, the team scored 30-40% lower than teams with no bad apple. Once they got a load of Nick’s behavior, people shut down. They disengaged, they’d communicate less and hoard information. And, to the surprise of the researchers, they would actually begin to take on Nick’s bad behavior. If Nick was the jerk, rather than saying “what you just said was hurtful,” they’d be abrasive and would argue–not with Nick but with each other. If Nick was the slacker, his teammates took on his attitude. Forget the $100 prize, they’d just want to get out of there. People would say, “Let’s just get this over with. Put down anything.” On one video (each team was filmed), the team starts out alert and enthusiastic, leaning forward in their chairs, engaged with each other. But within 45 minutes they’re sprawled out on the table as lethargic as Nick the Depressive Pessimist.

It Doesn’t Have To Be

One team was able to rise above Nick’s influence. It had a member who didn’t get angry and didn’t withdraw. Instead he asked his teammates questions about the task and listened to what they said. He kept himself and his teammates engaged. Maybe it was something he had learned at home — he was the son of a Latin American diplomat. Hmmmm, asking questions and listening? Sounds like the kind of management skill that women are noted for. Did the bad apple researchers know anything about this?

Will Felps and Eliza Byington are now at the Rotterdam School of Management, where he’s an assistant professor and she’s a PhD candidate. The Glass Hammer spoke with Dr. Felps who offered some fascinating thoughts on gender differences and bad apple behavior. “One of the reasons the bad apple spoils the barrel is because you feel psychologically overwhelmed,” he explained. Right now he’s working on a study about how people respond to adverse situations – those subtle, perhaps subconscious machinations where we decide whether this-is-a-challenge-I’ll-rise-to versus this-is-a-threat-I’m-shutting down. He says, “Basically it has to do with your estimates about whether you have the resources to deal with the situation.” In other words, how powerful we feel. As for how women deal with bad apple situations, Felps had some ideas and pointed to some relevant research.

The way women communicate can be a good antidote to a bad apple. Anthony Mulac’s research shows that women have a higher question/statement ratio and also listen differently. Men ask questions to get the facts and once they have them, they’re ready to talk. Women ask questions to maintain the conversation and to increase relationship, and give signals like nodding or saying “unh-hunh” to show that they’re listening. “This is one of the key determinants of whether or not people feel like they’re being heard, and whether they remain engaged in conversation or the conversation dies,” said Felps. Linguist Deborah Tannen found much the same in her book, You Just Don’t Understand. Coming soon – a study by Felps and Niels van Quaquebeke on why questions are a powerful leadership tool.

But there’s a nasty trap that women are more likely to fall into than men. Have you ever found yourself going over and over something bad that happened? Women may be particularly susceptible to bad apples because of our tendency to ruminate over negative social interactions. Yale psychologist Susan Nolen-Hoeksema focuses on gender and rumination, which she defines as “the tendency to respond to distress by focusing on the causes and consequences of your problems, without moving into active problem-solving.” Men don’t ruminate as much. As Noelen-Hoeksema puts it, “Women think. Men drink.” Imitating the guys won’t work either. She also suggests that whereas alcohol dampens a man’s ruminations, it could exacerbate a woman’s tendency to spin her mental wheels, as well as giving her one more thing to worry about – her drinking.

The Lure of the Downward Spiral

All of us have our bad apple days, but our desire to fit in and be liked rein us back in after a lapse. “Individuals fundamentally really want the rewards, benefits and social approval of other people. So if people around you want you to do something, you’ll do it,” said Felps. “But if someone persistently and consistently behaves in negative ways, then we find that the whole group conforms to the individual through these contagion mechanisms.”

But it’s more than contagion. Negativity can be downright seductive. If you’re curious about how and why, check out Roy Baumeister’s study “Bad Is Stronger Than Good.” As the diplomat’s son showed, we don’t have to succumb to that negative momentum. We can actually reverse the direction of the spiral by not falling into the rumination trap and by developing our natural abilities to listen and ask smart questions.